Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would Evolutionists accept evidence for Creation?
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 16 of 85 (446075)
01-04-2008 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
01-04-2008 8:53 PM


Re: Many Evolutionists are Creationists.
If the new model really did explain what is seen better than the current model, I would of course accept it.
then is it off topic for me to propose a new model with evidence?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 01-04-2008 8:53 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Rahvin, posted 01-04-2008 9:05 PM tesla has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 85 (446079)
01-04-2008 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Adminnemooseus
01-04-2008 8:39 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus opinion is that this topic would best be "evolutionists only"
The topic title question is directed to evolutionists - It is not asking for or looking for said evidence from the creationist side.
Well, I agree that the point of the topic isn't asking for evidence of a young earth. But it is asking for the hypothetical reactions of evolutionists should the earth be proven young.
Now, creationists don't really understand evolutionists; they think that they have some emotional reason to believe that evolution is the best description of the history of the world. In the same vein, they tend to think that atheists need to believe in evolution.
So a creationist might be surprised that to an atheist like me, the age of the world really has no bearing on my "world-view", as they like to put it. I think it's fair to allow them to ask us evolutionists questions about our attitude. (I wouldn't mind it if Cold Foreign Object weren't allowed to shit over what might be an interesting conversation, though.)

He fought for the South for no reason that he could now recall, other than the same one all men fought for: because he'd been a damn fool. -- Garth Ennis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-04-2008 8:39 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 01-05-2008 7:24 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 18 of 85 (446081)
01-04-2008 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by tesla
01-04-2008 8:42 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus opinion is that this topic would best be "evolutionists only"
and how many evolutionists are really searching for evidence of creation?
False dilemma. Science doesn't start with the goal of proving anything at all, whether that be evolution, creation, or anything else.
Scientists simply propose the model that best fits the evidence observed, and then rigorously test that model to do away with any inaccuracies.
If a Creationist model was proposed that explained the observed evidence and then stood up to rigorous testing without failing, it could be considered a viable scientific theory. Accuracy is all that matters in science.
Scientists in general have been searching for evidence of the Biblical myths since serious scientific inquiry began. Unfortunately for literalists, the evidence uncovered thus far has soundly contradicted several Biblical claims, like that of the Flood, and of a young Earth.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 8:42 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 9:08 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 19 of 85 (446082)
01-04-2008 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by tesla
01-04-2008 8:57 PM


Re: Many Evolutionists are Creationists.
then is it off topic for me to propose a new model with evidence?
I would absolutely love to hear it. But I would bet that would be best placed in a new thread, lest it completely derail this one.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 8:57 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 9:09 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 20 of 85 (446084)
01-04-2008 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rahvin
01-04-2008 9:03 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus opinion is that this topic would best be "evolutionists only"
Scientists in general have been searching for evidence of the Biblical myths since serious scientific inquiry began. Unfortunately for literalists, the evidence uncovered thus far has soundly contradicted several Biblical claims, like that of the Flood, and of a young Earth.
i have evidence that is a biblical claim. would it be admissible for me to discuss it ?
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 01-04-2008 9:03 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 01-04-2008 9:16 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 21 of 85 (446085)
01-04-2008 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Rahvin
01-04-2008 9:05 PM


Re: Many Evolutionists are Creationists.
I would absolutely love to hear it. But I would bet that would be best placed in a new thread, lest it completely derail this one.
ok, would you start the thread ?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Rahvin, posted 01-04-2008 9:05 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 22 of 85 (446090)
01-04-2008 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by tesla
01-04-2008 9:08 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus opinion is that this topic would best be "evolutionists only"
i have evidence that is a biblical claim. would it be admissible for me to discuss it ?
Honestly if it is like the nonsense you've posted so far I doubt it would go far.
BUT, let's stop for a second and look at what you have.
How can something in the Bible be evidence of anything?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 9:08 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 9:20 PM jar has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 23 of 85 (446094)
01-04-2008 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
01-04-2008 9:16 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus opinion is that this topic would best be "evolutionists only"
the evidence being a biblical claim doesn't mean it originated from the bible. it just means it "happens" to also be in the bible.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 01-04-2008 9:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 01-04-2008 9:24 PM tesla has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 24 of 85 (446095)
01-04-2008 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by tesla
01-04-2008 9:20 PM


Claims?
Claims are pretty worthless. Before you enter the new thread where you can present your Model, not claim, I suggest you very carefully read How can "Creationism" be supported? and understand what you will need to do. For example if you wish to introduce God or a Creator you will be expected to present that God or Creator for examination.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 9:20 PM tesla has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 25 of 85 (446209)
01-05-2008 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Chiroptera
01-04-2008 9:01 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus opinion is that this topic would best be "evolutionists only"
Chiroptera writes:
(I wouldn't mind it if Cold Foreign Object weren't allowed to shit over what might be an interesting conversation, though.)
Ditto tesla.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 01-04-2008 9:01 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 26 of 85 (455993)
02-14-2008 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by nwr
01-04-2008 12:14 AM


Re: My answers for LucyTheApe
nwr writes:
There's a general problem that both the Noah's Ark story, and the Garden of Eden story read like fables.
Genesis wasn't written down first-hand. Those stories were passed down generation-to-generation for a long time (sort of like the Illiad). However, when the creation story was written out, there were two accounts, which the author of Genesis (Moses?) put side-by-side. Genesis 1 shows the order of creation. Genesis 2 shows a more personal creation in which God cares about what man thinks of the garden.
The flood story is the same, except there were three accounts, and they weren't side-by-side, but shuffled together. If you'll notice, the ark seems to rise off the waters three times.
Genesis 7:7 writes:
And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
Genesis 7:13 writes:
In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
Genesis 7:18 writes:
And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
However, this doesn't mean that these stories are false in any way. The Iliad turned out to be quite plausible....

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
Soter
Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 01-04-2008 12:14 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Granny Magda, posted 02-15-2008 12:24 AM Crooked to what standard has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 27 of 85 (456016)
02-15-2008 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Crooked to what standard
02-14-2008 9:55 PM


How Plausible is Plausible?
Hi Ichthus,
Your test for plausibleness seems a little lax for my taste. You say;
quote:
However, this doesn't mean that these stories are false in any way. The Iliad turned out to be quite plausible....
Hmm. Which bits of the Ilaid do you find most plausible? This bit?
Homer writes:
Venus now went back into the house of Jove, while Juno darted
down from the summits of Olympus. She passed over Pieria and fair
Emathia, and went on and on till she came to the snowy ranges of
the Thracian horsemen, over whose topmost crests she sped without
ever setting foot to ground.
or this bit?
Homer writes:
Thus did he pray, and Apollo heard his prayer. He came down
furious from the summits of Olympus, with his bow and his quiver
upon his shoulder, and the arrows rattled on his back with the
rage that trembled within him. He sat himself down away from the
ships with a face as dark as night, and his silver bow rang death
as he shot his arrow in the midst of them. First he smote their
mules and their hounds, but presently he aimed his shafts at the
people themselves, and all day long the pyres of the dead were
burning.
I really like this bit;
Homer writes:
then Neptune and Apollo took counsel to
destroy the wall, and they turned on to it the streams of all the
rivers from Mount Ida into the sea, Rhesus, Heptaporus, Caresus,
Rhodius, Grenicus, Aesopus, and goodly Scamander, with Simois,
where many a shield and helm had fallen, and many a hero of the
race of demigods had bitten the dust. Phoebus Apollo turned the
mouths of all these rivers together and made them flow for nine
days against the wall, while Jove rained the whole time that he
might wash it sooner into the sea. Neptune himself, trident in
hand, surveyed the work and threw into the sea all the
foundations of beams and stones which the Achaeans had laid with
so much toil; he made all level by the mighty stream of the
Hellespont, and then when he had swept the wall away he spread a
great beach of sand over the place where it had been. This done
he turned the rivers back into their old courses.
Now those are just a few passages I took from this on-line version of the Iliad. I didn't have to look very hard, because there are quite a lot of ridiculous and fantastical passages to choose from. I am aware that such passages are probably not the ones that you were thinking of. Some bits of the Iliad are indeed a great deal more plausible. The point is that the least plausible sections are the ones where supernatural deities perform miraculous feats.
The same is true of the Bible. The bit where a supernatural entity floods the entire world has to count as one of the least plausible bits, however many other passages are supported by evidence.
I believe that Troy was probably a real place because Schliemann found it, or at least an ancient city that could well have been Troy, using the Iliad as his guide. We have tangible evidence for its existence. It's not 100% convincing, but at least it's evidence. It is however, important to note, that evidence for the existence of Troy, even if that evidence were incontrovertible, does absolutely nothing to back up any of the fantastical stories presented above.
If you can provide genuinely plausible evidence of a worldwide flood, and also explain away the wealth of geological evidence that contradicts a flood, feel free to start a thread. If your evidence is strong enough, who knows, you might rewrite the geology textbooks. Just remember;
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-14-2008 9:55 PM Crooked to what standard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-15-2008 1:51 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 28 of 85 (456017)
02-15-2008 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
01-03-2008 8:42 PM


Re-Flood
Hi Rahvin,
I was just reading around and found this and thought I would put my two cents worth in even though I am not an evolutionist.
Rahvin writes:
Give me incontrovertible evidence of any event, Noachian Flood included, and I will believe it. I follow the evidence.
According to my Bible you will never find evidence as in a layer over the face of the earth.
The tenth and eleventh chapters of Genesis tells of the tower of babel. When there was one language and God confounded the language and scattered them abroad upon the face of all the earth. Then the earth was divided. Up until that time all the land mass was in one place. When the earth was divided the oceans were formed and the mountains were formed..
So no you will never see that record.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2008 8:42 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2008 1:28 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 30 by Vacate, posted 02-15-2008 1:29 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 36 by Rahvin, posted 02-15-2008 10:46 AM ICANT has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 29 of 85 (456022)
02-15-2008 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by ICANT
02-15-2008 12:54 AM


Re: Re-Flood
quote:
When the earth was divided the oceans were formed and the mountains were formed..
The Bible doesn't say anything like that. The division seems to refer to the peoples dividing up after Babel. There's no mention of the land mass dividing up or of volcanoes forming. And of course we know that there were volcanoes and continental drift happening long before there were any humans on the scene.
Even if your scenario did happen we'd find evidence of the Flood - it wouldn't erase everything. But we don't. And we don't find real evidence for your scenario or even the Babel story either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 02-15-2008 12:54 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 02-15-2008 9:26 AM PaulK has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 30 of 85 (456023)
02-15-2008 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by ICANT
02-15-2008 12:54 AM


Re: Re-Flood
Then the earth was divided. Up until that time all the land mass was in one place. When the earth was divided the oceans were formed and the mountains were formed.
If the movement of the landmasses erased the evidence for a global flood - why then did it not remove the evidence for the billions of years that came before? Why would mountains rising erase the flood layer from within the rocks of the mountain itself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 02-15-2008 12:54 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 02-15-2008 9:04 AM Vacate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024